All they're interested in is going after the tools (in this case, guns) instead of what the possible CAUSES of such mass shootings are.That boy in CT was on anti-depressants, for example. That idiot in the VA Tech shootings had stopped taking his. That orange-haired nutjob had been on them as well. One of the Columbine boys was as well.The list goes on and on....

Point is, those drugs can have SERIOUS side effects and coming off them can cause even worse behavior over up to a years' time.

Instead of sending the $750,000 bill for Hawkins Co to install gun-carrying SRO's in every county school to local taxpayers or the 150 million national taxpayers, that bill needs to be sent to the 4 million NRA members only.

Its their organization that is primarily responsible for gun proliferation. Organizations like the NRA were selling the story that Nancy Lanza bought into, that a divorced mother living in a $500,000 house shared by a mentally troubled son, collecting $100,000 a year in alimony (her only source of income) absolutely needed a semi-automatic for "home protection".

You are right, tho, that its a mental health issue. However, the need to rush right out and buy guns after mass attacks is a form of mental illness in itself. Where do we draw the line when it comes to metal illness? Your definition, or mine?

So some think we should take these guns away from people. Many of whom have never broken any law, have all their mental faculties, and enjoy shooting as a sport. Many of these same people would give up their guns if required by law. But who is going to do the actual "taking" of these guns. Your local police? The National Guard? Federal Officers? Do you actually think the lunatic fringe out there will voluntarily do this? These school shootings are bad, but can u imagine what might happen. More innocent people hurt or killed. I also dont think that drug cartels, the klan and nazis, drug dealers, crips, bloods, angles and outlaws will so easily give up their guns. Then the innocent will no longer be able to defend themselves. Think about it.

Please remember that SRO's arent just armed security. They also can teach programs such as anti drug programs. They can provide traffic control. Give information about child safety seats and seatbelts. Be a counselor to troubled kids. Help teachers, staff with problems. Many things that these officers do, other than just security. Not a bad investment at all.

The problem is all guns don't end up in the hands of law-abiding, mentally-capable people. And the law-abiding, mentally capable people like Feed do JACK SHIT at policing their own crowd of gun owners.

CT happened not only because of a mental illness, but also because a "responsible gun owner" without a job wasn't so responsible after all.

The problem is the NRA, founded to be a protector of gun rights, is far from its original purpose and is now acting as a proliferator of guns and gun access. And some day, when some type of weapons get banned, that loss of gun rights have the fingerprints of a fuckedup NRA all over it.

I don't want your guns, Fred.

I want you to get off your ass and police your peers better. Someone is falling down on the "responsible gun ownership" job. And its not a kid with mental problems.

I certainly don't want us to lose any gun rights.The problem is all guns don't end up in the hands of law-abiding, mentally-capable people. And the law-abiding, mentally capable people like Feed do JACK SHIT at policing their own crowd of gun owners.CT happened not only because of a mental illness, but also because a "responsible gun owner" without a job wasn't so responsible after all.The problem is the NRA, founded to be a protector of gun rights, is far from its original purpose and is now acting as a proliferator of guns and gun access. And some day, when some type of weapons get banned, that loss of gun rights have the fingerprints of a fuckedup NRA all over it.I don't want your guns, Fred.I want you to get off your ass and police your peers better. Someone is falling down on the "responsible gun ownership" job. And its not a kid with mental problems.

Shoot drug dealers, wacko's, thieves, pill heads, meth heads, and the rest of the crooked crowd and thier won't be a problem. Take guns away from responsible gun owners and your problems will get worse from those who have nothing to fear committing crimes.

When does it end? What happens when there is a shooting at McDonald's? You going to put police officers there? Your neighbors get into a fight, what then? You going to put a officer at the end of the street?

It was a horrible tragedy. It broke my heart & I cried thinking of those innocent babies. Did I run and ditch my gun? No, I cleaned, loaded and carry it in order to protect myself & my family. Am I nut? No. It is my right under the Constutution of the United States of America that I may own one. The same paper that was the foundation that built thus country.

You folks that don't carry a gun have that right not to. I am not up screaming & hollering that you should be required to. Why the crap do you feel the need to tell me I can't?

So instead of reforming how mental illness is cared for, you are going to ban guns. That solves nothing. What will you do when the crazies start blowing up innnocent people with homemade bombs, for example, as they do in foreign countries or Oklahoma City or the first threat against the Twin Towers here. Where were you then and what were you bitching that should be taken away then?

When does it end? What happens when there is a shooting at McDonald's? You going to put police officers there? Your neighbors get into a fight, what then? You going to put a officer at the end of the street?It was a horrible tragedy. It broke my heart & I cried thinking of those innocent babies. Did I run and ditch my gun? No, I cleaned, loaded and carry it in order to protect myself & my family. Am I nut? No. It is my right under the Constutution of the United States of America that I may own one. The same paper that was the foundation that built thus country.You folks that don't carry a gun have that right not to. I am not up screaming & hollering that you should be required to. Why the crap do you feel the need to tell me I can't?So instead of reforming how mental illness is cared for, you are going to ban guns. That solves nothing. What will you do when the crazies start blowing up innnocent people with homemade bombs, for example, as they do in foreign countries or Oklahoma City or the first threat against the Twin Towers here. Where were you then and what were you bitching that should be taken away then?

They would rather feed their kids a pill and blame you. These libtards need to teach thier kids respect and self discipline instead of drugging them up to avoid the issue as it grows. Spank the brats and stop drugging them.

Yes, you have the ABSOLUTE right to own and carry a gun ON YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY, and I respect that.

You DO have a choice to leave the confines of your property or not, everyday, and when you CHOOSE to do so, you are now governed by the RULES of these OTHER PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS upon whose private property you venture onto. If your employer forbids 'guns in the trunk', then tough shit on that, you need to go find another job I guess. Nobody is forcing you to work there.

If Wal-Mart doesn't allow guns in their stores, effectively restricting your ability to defend yourself, you HAVE A CHOICE to NOT SHOP THERE. Nobody is forcing you to go there and shop.

I respect the rights of these private property owners because I expect the same rights to control my own private property as I see fit.

The NRA and its BAG CARRIERS like Ron Ramsey are assaulting the rights of private property owners, all to give an extra sense of security to gun owners who have ALWAYS had the choice to not shop there or not eat in that restaurant if the owner says 'no guns on premisis'.

NOWHERE does the rights of private property owners to control guns as they see fit on their property infringe upon your second amendment right to OWN guns when ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY.

Right now, the NRA is "playing offense" instead of its proper job of "playing defense", and in doing so, they are pissing all over private property rights in statehouses all over the country. And its all just to cater to a sense of added protection for "responsible gun owners" like Duh. This is what the pending supreme court case will be all about. In the past SCOTUS has sided 100% for guns in the context of owners being ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY. The pending case does not meet that criteria.

I believe the root of the gun debate lies directly with how some want to twist the Constitution and other legal documents. They want to hide behind situations like the school shooting knowing full well that was not a gun issue but more of a mental health issue regarding the illness of one individual.

I don't whip my gun out & flaunt it. You would never know I had it. I have been trained and am an excellent marksman.

The locations I go, example work & Walmart, do not have bans. If they did, I would not go there. If they don't respect me or my beliefs, I will not support them. It is my choice as you have noted. It is also my choice to defend myself.

It is better in my eyes to do what I must to defend myself than ask if I can. What would your thoughts have been if the principal had indeed had a gun and defended herself & those defenseless children? Would you be debating how she was wrong since she was not on her private property? Or would you be singing praises for saving lives from a clearly disturbed individual?

I don't "blame the gun" for CT. But I don't let "responsible gun owners" who turned out to be irresponsible off the hook, either. You apparently do. I guess its because Nancy Lanza was "a member of the sisterhood". We both agree on the mental health stuff, but I see nothing in your comments on the failure of Nancy Lanza, so-called "responsible gun owner". Evidently, its simply not a part of your vocabulary to ever criticize other gun owners who grossly and incompetently fall down on the job.

If you are eating in a restaurant and the owner permits gun, I will stand right beside you and defend your right to conceal carry should some other customer steal a glimpse of your weapon and make a scene.

But you cannot deny that this entire flood of legislation regarding "gun in bars", "gun on college campuses", and "guns in the trunk" is a failure of gun owners (in general, not you in particular, so don't muddy the conversation with "tales of you") to reciprocate the same level of respect for private property owners who choose to say no to guns on their private property.

I respect your right to not venture onto other's private property if they don't allow you to protect yourself with a gun. But activism to convince others to boycott those businesses for no greater reason than they have a different view of guns on their property is absurd. They are doing nothing wrong, other than exercising their own property rights, to warrant that.

What would your thoughts have been if the principal had indeed had a gun and defended herself & those defenseless children?

As for this comment in particular, this is where you, a responsible gun owner, are LIVING A DREAM. Lets save the 'daisy picking' for another time. Does it really matter if the principal was armed and had managed to cap the shooter after shooting only 15 kids? Is that any less of a tragedy?

Lets do the math:

Time for a shooter to empty one semi-automatic clip, load another, and empty that one: LESS THAN 2 MINUTES.

Time for a principal to grab a gun and run down the hall and confront the assailant: ETERNITY.

The carnage is over even before the teacher in the next room begins to understand what's going on next door.

Columbine had "good guys with guns" on the school grounds at the time of the shooting, too. Did those "good guns" make that any less of a tragedy? Did it stop the violence prematurely?

<quoted text>As for this comment in particular, this is where you, a responsible gun owner, are LIVING A DREAM. Lets save the 'daisy picking' for another time. Does it really matter if the principal was armed and had managed to cap the shooter after shooting only 15 kids? Is that any less of a tragedy?Lets do the math:Time for a shooter to empty one semi-automatic clip, load another, and empty that one: LESS THAN 2 MINUTES.Time for a principal to grab a gun and run down the hall and confront the assailant: ETERNITY.The carnage is over even before the teacher in the next room begins to understand what's going on next door.Columbine had "good guys with guns" on the school grounds at the time of the shooting, too. Did those "good guns" make that any less of a tragedy? Did it stop the violence prematurely?

So just how does allowing less folks to defend themselves solve any of the problems? Look on the bright side, it could be worse. Our Government could be allowing known drug cartels to be buying high power rifles for criminals. Oh, wait a second, they did allow known drug cartel members to buy high power rifles. Hows that gun ban going in Mexico? Hows that gun ban working in Chicago? What about Baltimore? New York? Los Angeles?

Yes, you have the ABSOLUTE right to own and carry a gun ON YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY, and I respect that.You DO have a choice to leave the confines of your property or not, everyday, and when you CHOOSE to do so, you are now governed by the RULES of these OTHER PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS upon whose private property you venture onto. If your employer forbids 'guns in the trunk', then tough shit on that, you need to go find another job I guess. Nobody is forcing you to work there.If Wal-Mart doesn't allow guns in their stores, effectively restricting your ability to defend yourself, you HAVE A CHOICE to NOT SHOP THERE. Nobody is forcing you to go there and shop.I respect the rights of these private property owners because I expect the same rights to control my own private property as I see fit.The NRA and its BAG CARRIERS like Ron Ramsey are assaulting the rights of private property owners, all to give an extra sense of security to gun owners who have ALWAYS had the choice to not shop there or not eat in that restaurant if the owner says 'no guns on premisis'.NOWHERE does the rights of private property owners to control guns as they see fit on their property infringe upon your second amendment right to OWN guns when ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY.Right now, the NRA is "playing offense" instead of its proper job of "playing defense", and in doing so, they are pissing all over private property rights in statehouses all over the country. And its all just to cater to a sense of added protection for "responsible gun owners" like Duh. This is what the pending supreme court case will be all about. In the past SCOTUS has sided 100% for guns in the context of owners being ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY. The pending case does not meet that criteria.

And of course the first amendment only protects your right to free speech while you are on your own private property, It all makes sense to me now. When I step off my property I instantly become devoid of any constitutional rights.

Don't you all worry about freedom and safety. I will take care of you. My home town Chicago will be used as a model of "safety through gun control" for my new gun policies. During the election the inner city citizens realized that murder is acceptable as long as everyone is fed by the government rather than working for a living. 98% of them voted for me. and after I take guns and jobs away from you rednecks I will expect your vote too.(after we get rid of these silly term limits)

Praise Allah(Chicago, murder capital of the world, model for the rest of the country)

<quoted text>And of course the first amendment only protects your right to free speech while you are on your own private property, It all makes sense to me now. When I step off my property I instantly become devoid of any constitutional rights.

When you come into my movie theater which is private property and you talk during a movie, you are damn right I can have your ass REMOVED from my property.

If you picket at the factory I own, you are damn right I will remove your ass to the curb and off my property.

When I step off my property I instantly become devoid of any constitutional rights.

That is the bogus argument right there.

You are never "devoid of your constitutional rights".

What you do have is the CHOICE to venture onto other's private property or not, private property that may be governed by other rules. No one is stripping away any of your constitutional rights. Rather, you are choosing to venture onto restricted property (or not) by your own free will. The choice is always yours. And no one is interfering with your choice.

Time for a principal to grab a gun and run down the hall and confront the assailant: ETERNITY.

You are a typical Lib. Changing the situation to suit your argument. The principal was the first person to confront the shooter. If she had had a gun she could have shot first, then the children could have been saved. That's the plan with the SROs being stationed in our schools. Stop the shooter from killing.

Now back to the topic of addressing WHY people go on rampages. And why this issue is being exploited as a gun issue instead of what it really is.

And guess what, the assholish-ness of the NRA is a big part of the problem of 'WHY'.

The assholish-ness of Wayne Lapierre, who blames everything from moves, to video games, to the pharmaceutical industry, to the lack of mental health assistance, to anything else EXCEPT the gun proliferation actions of their own organization - which is WHY Adam Lanza had access to a semi-automatic in his own home.

Access to the weapon is a big part of "WHY". If you want to discuss WHY, then be prepared to discuss ALL INGREDIENTS of the "WHY".

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.